Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• ara_queryA
  3.6/5.0
  Behavior3/5

  Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context about automatic pagination defaults (limit=3, order=-started), which isn't in the schema. However, it doesn't cover other behavioral aspects like error handling, authentication needs, rate limits, or what the response looks like (no output schema). The description provides some value but leaves significant gaps for a mutation-capable tool.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is highly concise and front-loaded in a single sentence, with no wasted words. It efficiently communicates the core functionality and key behavioral trait (pagination defaults), earning its place without redundancy or fluff.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness3/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  Given the tool's complexity (3 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, supports POST/PUT mutations), the description is incomplete. It covers pagination defaults but misses critical details like mutation implications, response format, error handling, and when to use POST vs. GET. For a general-purpose API query tool with mutation capability, this leaves too many gaps for safe and effective use.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters4/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  The description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema: it explains the automatic pagination defaults (limit=3, order=-started) for the 'endpoint' parameter, which the schema only partially covers with its example. With 67% schema description coverage, the description compensates well by clarifying default behavior, though it doesn't detail all parameters (e.g., 'body' or 'method' beyond the default).

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose4/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Query Ara API endpoints' with the specific behavior of 'automatic pagination defaults (limit=3, order=-started)'. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'get_playbook_status' and 'watch_playbook' by being a general-purpose query tool rather than focused on specific operations. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings beyond its general nature.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines3/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description implies usage by mentioning 'automatic pagination defaults', suggesting it's for querying endpoints with pagination support. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_playbook_status' or 'watch_playbook', nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites. The guidance is limited to implied context without clear alternatives.

  Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

• get_playbook_statusA
  3.7/5.0
  Behavior3/5

  Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that this is a read operation ('Get') and specifies the output scope ('quick summary' vs 'detailed task information'), but doesn't mention behavioral aspects like error handling, performance characteristics, or what 'quick summary' entails. It adds some context but lacks comprehensive behavioral disclosure.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is perfectly concise with two sentences that each serve a distinct purpose: the first states the tool's function and scope, the second provides usage scenarios. There's zero wasted language, and it's front-loaded with the core purpose.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness3/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  For a single-parameter read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate context about what the tool does and when to use it. However, it doesn't describe what the 'quick summary' output contains or how it differs from what sibling tools might provide, leaving some gaps in completeness.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the single parameter 'playbook_id' with its description. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, maintaining the baseline score of 3 when schema coverage is high.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose4/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get a quick summary of playbook execution status without detailed task information.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('playbook execution status'), and scope ('quick summary' vs 'detailed task information'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'ara_query' or 'watch_playbook'.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines4/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description provides clear context for when to use this tool: 'Useful for checking if a playbook is complete or monitoring multiple playbooks.' This gives practical scenarios, though it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives among the sibling tools.

  Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

• watch_playbookA
  3.9/5.0
  Behavior3/5

  Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: real-time monitoring, repeated calling requirement, and that it returns progress details. However, it doesn't mention potential side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or error conditions that would be important for a monitoring tool.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

  Conciseness5/5

  Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

  The description is perfectly concise with three sentences that each earn their place: states the purpose, describes the return value, and provides crucial usage guidance. It's front-loaded with the core functionality and wastes no words.

  Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

  Completeness3/5

  Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

  For a monitoring tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate basic information about what the tool does and how to use it. However, it lacks details about the return format structure, error handling, and the implications of 'real-time' monitoring that would be needed for full contextual understanding.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters3/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents all three parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without compensating with additional semantic context.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

  Purpose5/5

  Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

  The description clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('Monitor', 'Returns', 'Call repeatedly') and identifies the resource ('playbook execution'). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on real-time monitoring rather than querying (ara_query) or getting a single status snapshot (get_playbook_status).

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines4/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description provides clear context for usage ('Call repeatedly to track progress'), indicating this is for ongoing monitoring rather than one-time status checks. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or directly compare it to the sibling tools (ara_query, get_playbook_status).

  Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.